s 

A4 


)SM 


Ube  "Clniversitp  of  Cbicago 


SULPHUR  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  SOIL 
FERTILITY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY 

OF   THE   OGDEN    GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF    SCIENCE 

IN   CANDIDACY   FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  BOTANY 


OP"    19- 


BY 

JOHN  WOODARD 


j*^ 


Private  Edition,  Distributed  By 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  LIBRARIES 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Reprinted  from 
The  Botanical  Gazette,  Vol.  LXXIII,  No.  2,  February,  1922 


Ube  mniversit^  of  Cbicago 


SULPHUR  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  SOIL 
FERTILITY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE   FACULTY 

OF   THE   OGDEN   GRADUATE   SCTHOOL  OF    SCIENCE 

IN   CANDIDACY   FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  BOTANY 


BY 

JOHN  WOODARD 


Private  Edition,  Distributed  By 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  LIBRARIES 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Reprinted  from 
The  Botanical  Gazette,  Vol.  LXXIII,  No.  2,  February,  1922 


S  ^  ^3 


W^ 


eXCHANGK 


ji  VOLUME  LXXIII  NUMBER  2 


THE 

BOTANICAL  GAZETTE 

.    .  February  ig22 

SULPHUR  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  SOIL  FERTILITY 

CONTRIBUTIONS  FROM  THE  HULL    BOTANICAL    LABORATORY    289 

John  Woodard 
Introduction 

Although  sulphur  was  recognized  as  an  essential  element  in 
plant  nutrition  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
the  use  of  sulphur  and  sulphur  compounds  as  fertilizers  has  never 
become  general.  Analyses  for  sulphur  in  soils  have  generally  been 
low,  yet  when  compared  with  the  sulphur  in  the  ash  of  plants,  the 
amount  present  in  the  soil  seemed  sufficient  for  all  the  needs  of  the 
crop.  The  use  of  gypsum  as  a  fertilizer,  however,  was  quite  exten- 
sive for  a  time,  following  the  discovery  of  its  beneficial  effect  on 
plants.  Browne  (13)  credits  this  discovery  to  a  clergjnnan  in 
Germany  in  1768.  From  there  it  spread  to  France  and  Great 
Britain,  and  was  brought  to  the  United  States  by  Benjamin 
Franklin,  who  used  it  on  his  farm  near  Philadelphia.  For  a  time 
gypsum  was  extensively  used  as  a  fertilizer  both  in  Europe  and  the 
United  States  and  gave  remarkable  results.  Griffiths  (25)  reports 
experiments  by  Schubert  in  Germany,  and  Crocker  (15)  refers 
to  the  experiments  of  Judge  Peters,  John  Binns,  and  Edmund 
RuFFiN  in  the  United  States.  All  these  men  obtained  remarkable 
results  with  gypsum  on  legumes. 

The  use  of  gypsum  alone,  however,  soon  failed  to  increase  crop 
yields,  and  investigators  seeking  for  an  explanation  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  gypsum  acts  chemically  on  the  phosphorus  or 
potassium  compounds  in  the  soil  and  liberates  either  phosphorus  or 

81 


82  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [februaky 

potassium  or  both.  This  view  is  presented  by  Griffiths  (25), 
VooRHEES  (72),  and  Hopkins  (32).  Browne  (13)  and  Bruckner 
(14)  consider  the  beneficial  effect  of  gypsum  due,  in  part  at  least, 
to  the  nutrient  effect  of  the  sulphur;  while  Vendelmans  (70)  and 
HiLGARD  (31)  mention  its  beneficial  effects,  particularly  on  the 
legumes,  without  giving  any  explanation. 

In  most  fertilizer  experiments  sulphur  has  been  added,  together 
with  phosphorus,  in  acid  phosphate  or  basic  slag,  or  with  the 
potassium  in  potassium  sulphate  or  kainit.  When  beneficial  results 
have  been  obtained,  the  investigators  have  invariably  ignored  the 
possible  effects  of  the  sulphur.  This  may  lead  to  erroneous  con- 
clusions, as  was  pointed  out  by  Liebig  (37)  in  1855.  He  said 
that  the  sulphur  or  the  calcium  in  the  acid  phosphate,  or  both, 
might  have  had  a  beneficial  effect  on  the  turnips  in  the  Rothamsted 
experiments,  as  well  as  the  phosphorus. 

Hopkins,  Hosier,  Pettit,  and  Readhimer  (33)  found  that 
kainit  increased  the  yields  of  corn,  wheat,  and  oats  on  the  waste 
hill  land  of  Johnson  County,  Illinois,  when  used  with  bonemeal, 
ground  Hmestone,  and  crop  residues^  over  similarly  treated  plots 
without  kainit.  On  the  plots  receiving  no  kainit,  as  well  as  on 
those  receiving  the  kainit,  cowpeas  were  grown  once  every  three 
years  and  turned  under  as  part  of  the  crop  residues.  Stewart 
(66)  compared  potassium  chloride  and  potassium  sulphate  as 
fertilizers  for  apple  orchards  in  Pennsylvania.  He  found  no 
appreciable  difference  in  the  effect  of  these  salts.  Smith  (65) 
found  a  greater  yield  of  oat  straw  for  potassium  sulphate  than 
potassium  chloride  in  pots  containing  Hagerstown  silt  loam. 

Brooks  (8)  compared  the  effects  of  potassium  sulphate  and 
potassium  chloride  on  alfalfa  in  field  experiments  at  the  Massachu- 
setts Agricultural  Experiment  Station.  Both  plots  received  600 
pounds  of  bonemeal  per  annum,  and  both  received  2  tons  per 
acre  of  hydrated  hme  before  planting  the  alfalfa.  Both  Grimm 
alfalfa  and  common  alfalfa  were  used.  Potassium  sulphate  gave 
increased  yields  of  0.50  tons  of  Grimm  alfalfa  and  0.75  tons  of  com- 
mon alfalfa  over  potassium  chloride.  In  every  case  the  alfalfa  on  the 
plots  receiving  potassium  sulphate  was  a  darker  green  than  on  the 
plots  receiving  potassium  chloride.     The  same  diflference  in  color 


192  2]  WOOD ARD— SOIL  FERTILITY  83 

was  reported  for  the  same  treatment  on  other  crops.  Brooks  (9) 
also  made  a  comparison  of  different  phosphate  fertilizers.  He 
found  that  acid  phosphate  and  dissolved  boneblack,  which  contain 
sulphur,  gave  greater  increases  in  crop  yields  than  raw  bonemeal 
and  rock  phosphate,  which  contain  little  or  no  sulphur.  A  more 
rapid  early  growth  of  both  tops  and  roots  and  earlier  maturity 
were  observed  on  the  plots  receiving  the  dissolved  boneblack  and 
acid  phosphate  than  on  the  plots  receiving  raw  bonemeal  and  rock 
phosphate. 

The  use  of  flowers  of  sulphur  as  a  fertilizer  was  observed  to 
have  an  influence  aside  from  its  effect  in  destroying  the  fungi  which 
cause  plant  diseases.  Mares  (50)  noticed  a  much  greater  vigor 
in  vines  that  had  been  sulphured  than  in  those  which  had  not. 
He  found  that  the  sulphur  was  oxidized  to  sulphuric  acid  in  the 
soil,  and  he  thought  that  the  sulphuric  acid  acted  on  the  insoluble 
compounds  containing  potassium  and  made  the  potassium  soluble. 
Demolon  (16)  found  that  heating  the  soil  prevented  the  oxida- 
tion, and  so  he  concluded  that  oxidation  was  caused  by  micro- 
organisms. Pfeiffer  and  Blanck  (56)  obtained  no  increased 
yields  of  oats  for  the  use  of  flowers  of  sulphur  in  field  experiments. 
Feilitzen  (21)  in  Europe,  and  Sherbakoff  (64)  in  the  United 
States  both  obtained  increased  yields  of  potatoes  from  the  use  of 
flowers  of  sulphur. 

BouLLANGER  and  DuGARDiN  (3)  found  flowers  of  sulphur  in- 
creased ammonification  but  decreased  nitrification.  The  harmful 
effect  on  the  nitrifying  bacteria  was  probably  due  to  the  acidity, 
as  Lint  (38)  found  that  the  oxidation  of  sulphur  in  the  soil  in- 
creased the  acidity  very  much.  Fred  and  Hart  (23)  report  an 
increase  in  ammonification  from  the  use  of  gypsum  in  peptone  so- 
lutions, and  Warington  (73)  obtained  an  increase  in  nitrification 
when  gypsum  was  applied  to  solutions  of  urea.  Greaves,  Carter, 
and  Goldthorpe  (24)  studied  the  influence  of  calcium  sulphate 
on  production  of  nitrates  and  found  it  caused  a  great  increase  in 
all  concentrations  used.  The  increase  was  very  high  for  the  higher 
concentrations  of  calcium  sulphate. 

Brioux  and  Guerbet  (7)  found  that  flowers  of  sulphur 
increased  availability  of  calcium  and  potassium  in  both  calcareous 


84  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

and  noncalcareous  soils,  but  had  no  efifect  on  phosphorus.  Lip- 
man  and  McLean  (42)  found  that  composting  rock  phosphate 
with  sulphur  increased  the  solubility  of  phosphorus.  McLean 
(48)  found  an  increase  of  solubility  of  phosphorus  in  the  sulphur- 
rock  phosphate  compost  when  compost  was  inoculated.  The 
presence  of  soluble  phosphates  and  sulphates  did  not  inhibit  the 
action.  Lipman,  McLean,  and  Lint  (43)  found  a  great  increase  in 
acidity  in  the  sulphur-floats  mixture.  Lipman  and  Joffe  (41) 
found  no  increased  availability  in  phosphorus  when  acidity  was 
increased  by  the  addition  of  sulphuric  acid.  Ellett  and  Harris 
(20)  found  greater  availability  of  phosphorus  in  a  manure-soil- 
floats-sulphur  compost  than  in  a  soil-floats-sulphur  compost. 
Ames  and  Richmond  (2)  found  no  increased  availabihty  of 
phosphorus  in  a  compost  to  which  calcium  carbonate  had  been 
added.  Acid  conditions  are  necessary  for  the  solution  of  the 
phosphorus.  Brown  and  Gwinn  (id)  found  an  increased  solu- 
bility of  phosphorus  in  soil  treated  with  sulphur  as  well  as  in  com- 
posts. Brown  and  Warner  (12)  found  no  increased  solubility 
of  phosphorus  in  a  manure-floats  compost,  but  a  great  increase 
when  flowers  of  sulphur  were  added  to  the  compost. 

The  use  of  gypsum  as  a  preservative  of  the  nitrogen  in  manure 
has  been  investigated  by  Heinrich  (30),  Vivien  (71),  Nolte  (53), 
and  by  Ames  and  Richmond  (i).  All  these  investigators  report 
a  saving  of  nitrogen  from  the  use  of  gypsum  on  the  manure. 

Investigations  on  the  efifect  of  flowers  of  sulphur  on  the  avail- 
ability of  potassium  in  greensands  were  conducted  by  McCall 
and  Smith  (45).  They  found  an  increase  in  the  availability  of 
potassium  in  composts  of  sulphur,  greensands,  and  manure,  but 
no  increase  in  availability  of  potassium  in  composts  of  sulphur, 
greensands,  and  soil. 

Reports  of  investigators  who  studied  the  influence  of  gypsum 
on  the  availability  of  potassium  do  not  agree.  McCool  and 
Millar  (46)  found  calcium  sulphate  applied  to  soil  lowered  the 
freezing  point  of  the  soil.  No  report  was  given  as  to  the  character 
of  the  compounds  that  lowered  the  freezing  point.  Bradley  (4) 
found  an  increase  in  solubiHty  of  potassium  but  not  of  phosphorus 
in  Oregon  soils.     Briggs  and  Brezeale  (6)  found  a  decrease  in 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  85 

solubility  of  potassium  in  California  soils  when  gypsum  was  added, 
and  the  solubility  of  potassium  decreased  as  the  amount  of  gypsum 
used  was  increased.  Brezeale  and  Briggs  (5)  grew  wheat  in 
water  cultures,  using  extracts  from  orthoclase  minerals  with  and 
without  gypsum.  The  gypsum  did  not  increase  the  availability 
of  the  potassium  to  the  wheat.  Morse  and  Curry  (52)  treated 
feldspars  with  gypsum  for  ten  weeks  in  water,  filtered  off  the  solu- 
tion and  analyzed  for  potassium.  Only  slightly  more  potassium  was 
found  than  when  no  gypsum  was  used.  McMillar  (49)  treated 
five  different  soils  with  gypsum  for  three  months  and  analyzed  for 
soluble  potassium.  Gypsum  was  used  at  the  rate  of  ten  tons  per 
acre  and  resulted  in  an  increase  in  soluble  potassium  in  every  case. 
Tressler  (69)  found  an  increase  in  soluble  potassium  in  some  soils, 
but  no  increase  in  others  when  treated  with  gypsum.  Lipman" 
and  Gericke  (39)  obtained  an  increase  of  available  potassium  in 
greenhouse  soil,  a  slight  increase  in  adobe  soil,  and  no  increase  in 
sand.  FRAPS  (22)  grew  plants  in  pots  of  soil  treated  with  gypsum 
and  analyzed  the  plants  for  potassium.  He  found  no  increase  in 
potassium  in  plants  grown  on  the  gypsum-treated  soil  above  that 
on  the  soil  without  gypsum.  He  reports  no  analyses  of  the  soils 
used,  however,  so  it  is  not  known  whether  these  soils  were  deficient 
in  potassium  or  not.  If  the  soil  has  sufficient  potassium  in  an 
available  form  to  supply  all  the  plants'  needs,  there  would  not 
likely  be  any  increased  absorption  even  if  the  soil  treatment  dis- 
solved some  of  the  insoluble  potassium  compounds  in  the  soil. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  a  soil  deficient  in  potassium  and  sulphur, 
the  application  of  gypsum  or  any  other  fertilizer  containing  sulphur 
would  stimulate  the  growth  of  roots,  and  the  increased  size  of  the 
root  system  would  make  it  possible  for  the  plant  to  absorb  more 
potassium.  This  increased  absorption  would  take  place  regardless 
of  any  possible  effects  on  the  solubility  of  the  potassium  compounds 
in  the  soil. 

The  experiments  of  McMillar  (49),  Tressler  (69),  and 
LiPMAN  (39)  indicate  a  greater  solubiHty  of  potassium  in  some 
soils  when  treated  with  gypsum,  but  other  soils  show  no  effect, 
while  Briggs  and  Brezeale  (6)  report  a  decrease  in  solubility 
when  gypsum  was  used.     It  seems,  therefore,  that  the  beneficial 


86  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

effects  of  gypsum  can  hardly  be  ascribed  to  its  effect  on  the  solu- 
bility of  the  potassium  in  the  soil.  It  seems  more  Ukely  that  the 
soils  that  respond  to  the  use  of  gypsum  are  deficient  in  some  element 
that  is  supplied  by  the  gypsum. 

Recent  studies  of  methods  for  the  analysis  of  organic  material 
for  sulphur  have  shown  that  all  the  sulphur  is  not  recovered  in 
the  ash  when  organic  material  is  burned.  Hart  and  Peterson 
(27,  28)  found  one  hundred  times  as  much  SO3  in  the  rice  grain  as 
in  the  ash  of  that  grain,  and  forty  times  as  much  in  the  corn  grain. 
Similar  results  were  obtained  with  other  grains,  but  the  ratios  were 
less  in  some  cases.  Onions,  potatoes,  crucifers,  and  legumes  use 
large  quantities  of  sulphur.  Alfalfa  removes  twice  as  much  sulphur 
as  phosphorus  from  the  soil.  Peterson  (55)  studied  the  sulphur 
compounds  in  plants  and  found  proteins,  volatile  compounds, 
mustard  oils,  and  sulphates.  In  ashing  the  plant  material  the 
sulphates  remain,  but  at  best  part  of  the  sulphur  in  other  com- 
IX)unds  is  lost.  Most  soils  are  low  in  sulphur,  which  is  present  in 
the  soil  in  the  form  of  sulphates  and  organic  matter.  Sulphates 
are  all  soluble,  and,  like  nitrates,  they  are  not  adsorbed  to  any 
great  extent,  and  therefore  are  quickly  leached  out  of  the  soil  in 
the  humid  regions.  The  organic  sulphur  is  insoluble  but  is  readily 
oxidized  to  sulphates,  so  that  it  is  gradually  being  lost  unless  taken 
up  by  the  plant.  Lyon  and  Bizzell  (44)  in  their  lysimeter  studies 
at  Cornell  found  that  the  loss  of  sulphur  in  the  drainage  from 
uncropped  lysimeters  was  as  great  as  the  loss  in  drainage  and  in 
the  crops  from  cropped  soil.  The  oxidation  of  organic  sulphur  to 
sulphates  seemed  to  continue  at  the  same  rate  in  cropped  and 
uncropped  soil,  and  that  not  taken  up  by  plants  was  lost  in  the 
drainage. 

Cultivation  stimulates  oxidation  and  consequently  the  loss  of 
sulphur.  SwANSON  and  Miller  (68)  report  a  loss  of  38.53  per 
cent  of  sulphur  from  the  surface  and  41.56  per  cent  from  the  sub- 
soil of  Kansas  soils  due  to  cropping.  The  surface  soil  of  virgin 
land  had  0.044  per  cent  sulphur,  while  adjoiniAg  cropped  land  had 
0.027  per  cent.  The  sulphur  content  of  the  subsoil  was  0.062  per 
cent  in  the  virgin  land  and  0.036  per  cent  in  the  cropped  land. 
On  the  other  hand,  phosphorus  was  practically  the  same  in  the 


192  2]  WOOD ARD— SOIL  FERTILITY  87 

cropped  as  in  the  virgin  land  in  both  surface  and  subsoil.  The 
cultivated  soils  had  been  cropped  for  thirty  to  forty  years. 

Lyon  and  Bizzell  (44)  found  an  increased  loss  of  sulphur  in 
the  drainage  when  burnt  lime  was  used,  while  MacIntire,  Willis, 
and  Holding  (47)  found  the  loss  greater  for  calcium  carbonate 
than  for  calcium  oxide.  It  seems  the  carbonate  favors  bacterial 
action  much  more  than  the  oxide. 

Robinson  (59,  60)  analyzed  a  large  number  of  soil  samples 
from  different  parts  of  the  United  States  for  sulphur  and  phos- 
phorus. Most  of  them  were  low,  some  extremely  low,  in  both 
phosphorus  and  sulphur.  Many  of  the  samples  were  much  lower 
in  sulphur  than  phosphorus.  Brown  and  Kellogg  (ii)  analyzed 
samples  of  Iowa  soils  and  found  the  sulphur  content  varied  from 
719  to  938  pounds  per  acre  in  the  surface  soil,  while  the  phosphorus 
content  varied  from  1289  to  1538  pounds  per  acre.  Shedd  (62) 
analyzed  samples  of  Kentucky  soils  and  found  the  sulphur  content 
in  the  surface  soil  varied  from  213  to  1080  pounds  per  acre  in  virgin 
soil,  and  from  180  to  560  pounds  per  acre  in  cultivated  soils.  The 
phosphorus  content  in  the  surface  soil  ranged  from  320  to  5860 
pounds  in  virgin  soil,  and  from  320  to  7  240  pounds  in  cultivated  soil. 

Some  sulphur  is  brought  down  from  the  air  in  rain  water. 
The  amount  is  probably  greater  during  periods  of  heavy  rainfall 
than  when  the  precipitation  is  slight.  Near  cities,  where  a  large 
amount  of  coal  is  burned,  the  amount  is  probably  much  greater 
than  in  country  districts  far  from  cities  and  railroads.  The  data, 
however,  are  too  meager  to  form  any  definite  conclusions.     Hall 

(26)  reports  sulphur  analyses  of  rain  water  at  Rothamsted  from  1881 
to  1887  which  give  an  annual  average  of  seven  pounds  of  sulphur 
in  the  rain  water  per  acre  per  year.    Analyses  by  Hart  and  Peterson 

(27)  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin  for  part  of  a  year  led  them  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  amount  in  one  year  would  be  approximately 
the  same  as  found  at  Rothamsted,  Stewart  (67)  analyzed  rain 
water  at  the  University  of  Illinois  and  obtained  as  a  seven-year 
average  45.1  pounds  of  sulphur  per  annum.  All  of  these  analyses 
are  of  rain  water  collected  near  cities.  The  water  in  the  rain 
gauges  is  Hkely  to  be  contaminated  by  dust  and  soot  and  by  the 
droppings  of  birds  which  roost  on  the  rain  gauges. 


88  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE 


FEBRUARY 


La  WES  and  Gilbert  (36)  found,  in  their  fertilizer  experiments 
with  red  clover,  that  ''the  produce  was  considerably  increased  by 
the  application  of  gypsum,  and  still  more  so  by  that  of  the  sul- 
phates of  potash,  soda,  and  magnesia,  and  superphosphate  of  lime." 
In  four  years  the  increased  yield  from  the  use  of  gypsum  was  3.5 
tons  of  dry  hay,  or  an  average  of  0.9  ton  per  acre  per  year. 

Hunt  (35),  at  the  Pennsylvania  Agricultural  Experiment  Sta- 
tion, used  gypsum  in  a  rotation  of  corn,  oats,  wheat,  and  hay 
(timothy  and  clover).  Gypsum  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  320 
pounds  per  acre  per  rotation  in  two  appHcations,  160  pounds  to 
the  corn  and  160  pounds  to  the  wheat.  No  other  fertilizers  were 
used,  and  no  increases  in  yields  were  obtained  from  the  use  of 
gypsum.  These  experiments  would  be  more  valuable  if  the  gypsum 
had  been  applied  to  the  clover  and  other  fertilizers  had  been  used 
to  remove  the  possibility  of  another  limiting  factor. 

Miller  (51)  grew  clover  in  pots  containing  Oregon  soils. 
Applications  of  sulphur  were  made  in  the  form  of  flowers  of  sul- 
phur, sodium  sulphate,  and  gypsum.  Gypsum  and  sodium  sulphate 
gave  increased  yields,  but  the  flowers  of  sulphur  had  little  effect. 

ScHREiNER  (61)  studied  the  effect  of  different  salts  on  oxida- 
tion in  soil  extracts  in  which  wheat  seedlings  were  grown.  He 
reports  increased  oxidation  from  the  use  of  calcium  sulphate, 
potassium  sulphate,  and  sodium  sulphate. 

Dymond,  Hughes,  and  Jupe  (18)  compared  the  effect  of 
ammonium  sulphate  and  ammonium  chloride  on  cabbages  grown 
on  non-calcareous  soil.  Greater  yields  were  obtained  with  the 
ammonium  sulphate  than  with  the  ammonium  chloride.  In  their 
experiments  with  clover  they  obtained  a  20  per  cent  increase  in 
hay  from  the  use  of  gypsum.  In  pastures  they  observed  that 
legumes  predominated  where  sulphates  were  appUed,  and  grasses 
where  no  sulphates  were  used.  Gypsum  increased  the  yields  of 
red  clover,  maize,  and  vetch  in  sand  cultures,  and  of  vetch  in  soil 
cultures.  All  the  pots  received  applications  of  calcium  and  mag- 
nesium carbonates. 

LiPMAN  and  Gericke  (40)  compared  the  effects  of  different 
nitrogenous  fertilizers  on  barley  grown  on  Oakley's  vitro  sand,  and 
found   the   greatest  increase   with   ammonium   sulphate.     When 


1922]  WOOD ARD— SOIL  FERTILITY  89 

sulphur  containing  substances  were  added  to  the  non-sulphur 
containing  nitrogenous  fertilizers,  they  produced  yields  equal  to 
those  from  ammonium  sulphate. 

Shedd  (63)  grew  soy  beans,  oats,  alfalfa,  and  wheat  in  pots 
containing  Kentucky  soils.  Eight  different  soils  were  used,  and 
flowers  of  sulphur  added  at  the  rate  of  100  and  200  pounds  per 
acre.  Both  controls  and  sulphur  treated  pots  received  tricalcium 
phosphate,  potassium  nitrate,  and  calcium  carbonate.  There  were 
some  increases  but  also  some  decreases. 

Eaton  (19)  grew  sweet  corn  in  pots  containing  sand.  He 
compared  the  effect  of  gypsum,  flowers  of  sulphur,  and  sodium 
sulphate.  The  controls  as  well  as  the  different  sulphur  treatments 
were  watered  with  a  nutrient  solution  which  contained  no  sulphur. 
Gypsum  increased  the  yield,  while  flowers  of  sulphur  and  sodium 
sulphate  gave  increases  for  the  smaller  applications  and  decreases 
for  the  larger  appUcations. 

DuLEY  (17)  reported  a  darker  green  in  sweet  clover  and  corn 
when  fertilized  with  gypsum  or  sulphur.  More  nodules  were  also 
produced  on  the  roots. 

PiTZ  (57)  grew  clover  in  agar-agar  containing  dipotassium 
phosphate  with  and  without  calcium  sulphate.  Greater  length  of 
roots  was  obtained  with  the  calcium  sulphate.  Clover  was  also 
grown  in  Miami  silt  loam  with  and  without  calcium  sulphate. 
The  calcium  sulphate  increased  the  root  length. 

Hart  and  Tottingham  (29)  found  a  decided  increase  in  develop- 
ment of  beans,  red  clover,  and  peas  when  fertilized  with  either 
calcium  sulphate  or  sodium  sulphate.  In  beans  and  peas  the 
increase  was  in  the  seed,  in  clover  it  was  in  the  hay  and  roots. 
Sulphates  increased  the  yields  of  both  tops  and  roots  in  radishes. 
The  yield  of  rape  tops  was  increased  by  both  calcium  and  sodium 
sulphates.  Barley  was  not  affected  by  the  sulphates,  and  oats  to 
only  a  slight  extent. 

Olson  (54)  conducted  field  experiments  with  alfalfa  at  the 
Washington  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  and  obtained  in- 
creased yields  from  the  use  of  acid  phosphate  and  gypsum,  but 
not  from  other  forms  of  phosphorus.  Two  hundred  pounds  of 
gypsum  per  acre  increased  the  yields  of  alfalfa  from  100  to  500 
per  cent. 


90  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [februaky 

Reimer  and  Tartar  (58)  conducted  field  experiments  on  sev- 
eral Oregon  soils.  Superphosphate,  flowers  of  sulphur,  rock  phos- 
phate, potassium  chloride,  potassium  sulphate,  iron  sulphate, 
gypsum,  monocalcium  phosphate,  sodium  nitrate,  ammonium 
sulphate,  magnesium  sulphate,  sodium  sulphate,  iron  pyrites, 
quick  lime,  and  ground  hmestone  were  used  as  fertiUzers.  In 
almost  every  case  enormous  increases  in  yields  (from  two  to  ten 
times  as  much  as  the  checks)  were  obtained  for  all  the  fertilizers 
containing  sulphur,  and  no  increase  or  only  a  small  increase 
for  the  fertilizers  which  contained  no  sulphur.  Acid  phosphate 
was  compared  with  gypsum  and  rock  phosphate  and  with  rock 
phosphate  and  flowers  of  sulphur.  The  yield  on  the  plot  receiving 
rock  phosphate  and  gypsum  was  considerably  greater,  and  that 
from  the  plot  receiving  rock  phosphate  and  flowers  of  sulphur 
slightly  greater,  than  the  yield  from  the  acid  phosphate  treated 
plot.  The  alfalfa  on  all  the  plots  receiving  sulphur  in  any  form 
was  a  darker  green  than  on  the  plots  which  received  no  sulphur. 

Chemical  analyses  of  soil  samples  from  these  experimental 
fields  were  made.  The  sulphur  content  varied  from  0.015  to 
0.038  per  cent  in  the  surface  soil,  and  from  0.014  to  0.030  per  cent 
in  the  subsoil.  The  phosphorus  content  varied  from  0.048  to 
0.076  per  cent  in  the  surface,  and  from  0.066  to  0.085  per  cent  in 
the  subsoil.    All  were  high  in  calcium,  magnesium,  and  potassium. 

Investigation 

The  analyses  made  by  Robinson  (59,  60)  show  wide  variation 
in  the  sulphur  content  of  different  soil  types.  His  investigations, 
although  extensive,  have  included  only  a  part  of  the  numerous  soil 
types  found  in  the  United  States,  so  that  other  soil  types  should  be 
analyzed  to  discover  their  sulphur  as  well  as  their  phosphorus 
content.  It  is  also  necessary  to  conduct  field  experiments  on  the ' 
different  soils,  as  analytical  data  alone  are  not  sufficient  evidence 
on  which  to  base  fertilizer  practice.  This  investigation  includes 
soil  analyses  and  field  experiments.  Soil  samples  from  Indiana, 
Kentucky,  Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin  were  analyzed  for 
phosphorus,  sulphur,  and  volatile  matter  (loss  on  ignition).     Field 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  91 

experiments  were  conducted  in  Indiana  and  Kentucky  on  the  fields 
from  which  the  soil  samples  were  taken. 

Soil  analysis 

Methods  of  sampling. — The  soil  samples  from  Michigan  and 
Ohio  (nos.  1-9)  were  taken  by  Dr.  William  Crocker  and  those 
from  Wisconsin  (nos.  lo-ii)  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Hall.  The  samples 
were  taken  in  the  usual  way  by  means  of  a  soil  auger.  The  samples 
from  Indiana  and  Kentucky  were  taken  when  the  soil  was  very 
wet,  and  as  only  the  surface  soil  was  sampled,  it  was  believed  that 
more  accurate  sampling  could  be  done  by  using  a  spade  or  shovel. 
Some  soil  was  removed  to  a  depth  of  seven  inches,  leaving  one  side 
of  the  hole  vertical,  then  a  thin  shce  of  soil  was  cut  with  the  spade 
to  the  full  depth  of  seven  inches.  A  narrow  strip  of  this  extending 
from  top  to  bottom  was  removed  for  the  sample.  Three  or  four 
such  samples  from  different  parts  of  the  field  were  taken  and  mixed 
to  form  a  composite  sample.  The  samples  from  Indiana  were 
taken  by  John  Woodard,  except  no.  18,  which  was  taken  by  Mr. 
V.  G.  Mann,  and  those  from  Kentucky  by  John  Woodard,  except 
nos.  32-34,  which  were  taken  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Gentry.  All  the  soil 
samples  were  air  dried,  sifted  through  a  2  mm.  sieve,  and  thoroughly 
mixed. 

Analytical  methods. — Phosphorus  was  determined  according 
to  the  official  magnesium  nitrate  method  of  the  Official  Agricultural 
Chemists.  A  blank  determination  was  run  to  determine  the 
possible  presence  of  phosphorus  in  the  chemicals,  but  no  phos- 
phorus was  found. 

Sulphur  was  determined  by  a  modification  of  the  methods  of 
Shedd  and  of  Brown  and  Kellogg.  In  preliminary  work  it  was 
found  that  higher  results  were  obtained  when  the  iron  and  aluminum 
were  removed.  In  soils  low  in  sulphur  the  barium  sulphate  pre- 
cipitated very  slowly,  so,  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Frederick 
KocH,^  10  cc.  of  approximately  N/io  H2SO4  was  added  immedi- 
ately before  heating  the  solution  and  adding  the  barium  chloride. 
This  sulphuric  acid  was  measured  in  a  burette,  and  exactly  the 

'  Unpublished  work  of  Dr.  Frederick  Koch. 


92  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

same  quantity  of  the  same  add  was  added  to  the  blank  determina- 
tion, so  that  subtracting  the  blank  subtracted  the  sulphur  added 
in  the  sulphuric  acid  as  well  as  that  present  in  the  reagents.  In 
every  case  the  lo  cc.  was  measured  between  the  lo  and  20  marks 
on  the  burette.  According  to  Koch,  barium  sulphate  does  not 
precipitate  readily  when  the  concentration  of  the  SO4  ion  is  low. 
The  addition  of  the  sulphuric  acid  is  then  necessary  to  bring  the 
concentration  of  the  SO4  ion  up  to  the  point  where  precipitation 
takes  place  readily.  The  method  as  finally  adopted  is  as  follows: 
The  equivalent  of  10  gm.  of  oven  dry  soil  was  weighed  into  a 
nickel  crucible,  moistened  with  a  few  drops  of  distilled  water,  and 
part  of  a  weighed  20  gm.  of  sodium  peroxide  stirred  in  a  little  at 
a  time  with  a  nickel  rod.  (If  the  moisture  was  just  right,  reaction 
took  place  immediately  without  the  application  of  heat,  and  the 
charge  was  fairly  dry  by  the  time  most  of  the  sodium  peroxide  had 
been  stirred  in.  If  too  little  water  had  been  added,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  heat  with  an  alcohol  lamp  to  start  the  reaction.  If  too 
much  water  was  added,  it  was  necessary  to  heat  with  the  alcohol 
lamp  to  bring  to  the  desired  degree  qf  dryness  before  adding  the 
last  of  the  sodium  peroxide.)  After  the  charge  was  fairly  dry,  the 
rest  of  the  sodium  peroxide  was  placed  over  the  charge,  the  crucible 
covered,  and  heated  over  a  bunsen  burner,  raising  the  temperature 
gradually  to  a  fairly  high  temperature  which  was  maintained  for  an 
hour.  After  cooling,  the  fused  mass  was  removed  with  hot  dis- 
tilled water  to  a  600  cc.  beaker,  neutralized  with  concentrated 
HCl,  and  then  10  cc.  additional  concentrated  HCl  added.  The 
beaker  was  then  heated  for  five  or  six  hours  on  the  steam  bath  with 
occasional  stirring.  It  was  then  transferred  to  a  500  cc.  flask, 
covered,  and  made  up  to  the  mark.  The  solution  was  shaken 
frequently  for  several  hours  and  the  250  cc.  filtered  off.  The 
250  cc.  of  filtrate  was  transferred  to  a  600  cc.  beaker,  heated  on 
the  steam  bath,  and  the  iron,  aluminium,  and  silica  precipitated 
with  ammonium  hydroxide,  allowed  to  stand  a  few  minutes,  and 
then  filtered  into  a  one  liter  beaker.  The  precipitate  was  washed 
with  hot  distilled  water  until  the  combined  filtrate  and  washings 
had  a  volume  of  approximately  600  cc.  Exactly  10  cc.  of  approx- 
imately N/io  H2SO4  was  then  added,  heated  to  boiUng,  and  10  cc. 


1922]  WOOD  A  RD— SOIL  FERTILITY  93 

of  hot  10  per  cent  BaCla  solution  added  a  drop  at  a  time  from  a 
pipette.  The  solution  was  boiled  for  ten  minutes,  placed  on  the 
steam  bath  for  two  or  three  hours,  and  then  removed  and  allowed 
to  stand  over  night.  The  barium  sulphate  precipitate  was  then 
filtered  off,  washed  with  cold  distilled  water,  transferred  to  a 
weighed  porcelain  crucible,  ignited  to  a  dull  red  in  a  muffle  furnace, 
cooled  in  a  desiccator,  and  weighed.  Blanks  were  determined 
using  the  same  reagents  and  adding  the  same  quality  of  the  same 
sulphuric  acid  that  was  used  in  the  determination. 

The  loss  on  ignition  was  determined  on  samples  which  had 
been  used  for  determining  moisture.  The  moisture  was  deter- 
mined by  heating  10  gm.  of  air  dry  soil  in  the  oven  for  five  or  six 
hours.  Part  of  the  samples  were  heated  to  100°  C.  in  an  ordinary 
oven  and  part  of  them  to  35°  C.  in  a  vacuum  oven.  After  weighing 
for  the  moisture  determination,  the  sample  was  placed  in  the 
muffle  furnace,  heated  to  a  dull  red  for  an  hour,  cooled  in  a  desic- 
cator, and  weighed.  The  loss  on  ignition  was  calculated  as  percent- 
age of  oven  dry  soil.  Table  I  gives  the  results  of  the  analytical 
work  on  all  the  soils  analyzed.  Phosphorus,  sulphur,  and  volatile 
matter  (loss  on  ignition)  are  reported  as  percentage  of  oven  dry 
soil. 

Sulphur  is  present  in  the  soil  either  in  the  form  of  sulphates  of 
calcium,  magnesium,  and  iron,  or  in  the  form  of  organic  matter. 
All  the  sulphates  are  quite  soluble  and  are  not  readily  adsorbed, 
so  that  they  are  leached  out  rapidly  and  only  small  amounts  are 
present  in  the  soil.  On  the  other  hand,  the  organic  sulphur  is 
insoluble  and  remains  in  the  soil  until  oxidized  to  sulphates.  One 
would  expect,  therefore,  some  sort  of  relation  between  the  sulphur 
content  of  the  soil  and  the  volatile  matter  (loss  on  ignition),  which 
is  a  rough  method  of  determining  the  organic  matter.  The  data 
in  table  I,  however,  indicate  only  a  general  relation,  and  that  only 
when  samples  from  the  same  soil  type  or  closely  related  soil  types 
are  compared.  The  soil  samples  from  Wisconsin  are  from  the 
same  soil  type,  but  differ  in  amount  of  organic  matter.  There  is 
also  a  difference  in  content  of  sulphur,  and  the  higher  sulphur  con- 
tent is  found  in  the  sample  with  the  higher  content  of  organic  mat- 
ter.    This  is  true  for  both  surface  soil  and  subsoil.     The  Michigan 


94 


BOTANICAL  GAZETTE 
TABLE  I 


(FEBRUARY 


Sample 
no. 

Soil 
strata 
(inches) 

Name  of  farm  or  farm  owner 

Location 

Percentage 

of  volatile 

matter 

Percentage 
of  sulphur 

Percentage 
of  phos- 
phorus 

lA... 

0-6 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

2.076 

0.0158 

0 . 0360 

iB... 

7-14 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

2.341 

0.0157 

0.0330 

iC... 

15-24 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

2.662 

0.0216 

0.0305 

2A... 

0-6 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

4.988 

0 . 0486 

0.05x8 

2B... 

7-14 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

4.481 

0.0405 

0.0561 

3A... 

0-6 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

2.863 

0.0183 

0.0390 

3B... 

7-14 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

2.522 

0.0159 

0.0324 
f   Not 

4A... 

a-6 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

4.862 

0.0361 

deter- 
mined 

'  Not 

4B... 

7-14 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

3-754 

0.0263 

deter- 
mined 

SA... 

0-6 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

4-3II 

0.0319 

0.0514 

5B... 

7-14 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

3.822 

0.0283 

0468 

sc... 

15-24 

Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm 

Michigan 

3.462 

0.0177 

0.0305 

6A... 

0-6 

Everett's  farm 

Ohio 

3-631 

0.0232 

0.0788 

6B... 

7-14 

Everett's  farm 

Ohio 

2.466 

0.0140 

0.041 I 

7A... 

0-6 

Arnold's  farm 

Ohio 

4.642 

0.0334 

0.0771 

7B... 

7- 

Arnold's  farm 

Ohio 

2.984 

0.0195 

0.0423 

8A... 

c^6 

Jacoby's  farm 

Ohio 

5-228 

0.0281 

0.0582 

8B... 

7- 

Jacoby's  farm 

Ohio 

3-148 

0.0050 

0.0326 

9A... 

a-6 

Jacoby's  farm 

Ohio 

14-327 

0.0905 

0.0939 

9B... 

7- 

Jacoby's  farm 

Ohio 

S-969 

0.0194 

0.0343 

loA.  . . 

c^6 

Wager's  farm 

Wisconsin 

8. 116 

00351 

0.0744 

loB.  .. 

7- 

Wager's  farm 

Wisconsin 

6.954 

0.0202 

0 . 0649 

II  A... 

0-6 

Wager's  farm 

Wisconsin 

6.836 

0.0245 

0.0795 

iiB... 

7- 

Wager's  farm 

Wisconsin 

4 -043 

0.0124 

0.0457 

12 

0-6 

Ross's  farm 

Indiana 

5-758 

0.0172 

0.1054 

13 

(1^6 

Carr's  farm 

Indiana 

4.721 

0.0165 

0.0628 

14 

0-6 

Reich's  farm 

Indiana 

4-075 

0.0118 

0 . 0490 

IS 

0-6 

Bentley's  farm 
(cropped  soil) 

Indiana 

4.809 

00155 

0 . 0566 

16 

0-6 

Bentley's  farm 
(virgin  soil) 

Indiana 

5-249 

0.0233 

0.0564 

17 

0-6 

Barnett's  farm 

Indiana 

4.462 

0.0183 

0.0492 

18 

0-6 

McCuUoch's  farm 

Indiana 

4-807 

0.0155 

0.0578 

19 

0-6 

Adina  farm 

Kentucky 

7.024 

0.0258 

0.1897 

20 

0-6 

Adina  farm 

Kentucky 

4-526 

0.0232 

0.0799 

21 

0-6 

Adina  farm 

Kentucky 

7.496 

0.0131 

0.1636 

22 

0-6 

Adina  farm 

Kentucky 

4.884 

0.0122 

0.1298 

23 

0-6 

Adina  farm 

Kentucky 

4.318 

0.0206 

0.0768 

24 

0-6 

Marshall's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-S17 

0.0264 

0.1377 

25 

0-6 

Downing's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-466 

0.0159 

0.0977 

26 

0-6 

Downing's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-229 

0.0236 

0.1765 

27 

0-6 

Downing's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-327 

0.0153 

0.1370 

28 

0-6 

Gentry  and  Curry's  farm 

Kentucky 

6.021 

0.0245 

02355 

29 

0-6 

Scott's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-088 

0.0235 

0.1500 

30 

0-6 

Sharp's  farm 

Kentucky 

6.540 

0.0161 

0.1779 

31 

0-6 

Moore's  farm 

Kentucky 

4723 

0.0253 

0.1007 

32 

0-6 

Fowler's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-051 

0.0250 

0.1727 

33 

0-6 

Watt's  farm 

Kentucky 

5-836 

0.0163 

0.1306 

34 

0-6 

Tuomey's  farm 

Kentucky 

II. 105 

0.0313 

0.3407 

1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  95 

soil  samples  are  also  quite  similar  in  texture.  Here  again  we  find  a 
high  sulphur  content  with  a  high  organic  matter  content,  and  a 
low  sulphur  content  with  a  low  organic  matter  content.  When  we 
compare  different  soil  types  or  samples  from  the  same  type  but 
from  fields  which  have  been  cropped  differently,  however,  there  is 
little  e\'idence  of  any  relation.  Samples  7  B  and  9  B  have  approxi- 
mately the  same  sulphur  content,  yet  the  volatile  matter  in  the 
latter  is  twice  that  in  the  former.  Both  these  samples  are  sub- 
soils from  Ohio,  and  were  taken  from  fields  that  were  not  far  apart, 
but  7  B  is  on  upland  silt  loam  while  9  B  is  a  muck  soil.  Again,  the 
cropped  soil  (no.  15)  and  the  virgin  soil  (no.  16)  from  Bentley's 
farm,  Indiana,  differ  only  sUghtly  in  volatile  matter,  but  differ 
widely  in  sulphur  content.  Gentry  and  Curry's  soil  (no.  28)  has 
slightly  less  volatile  matter  than  Sharp's  soil  (no.  30),  but  con- 
siderably more  sulphur.  Sample  10  A  from  Wager's  farm  in  Wis- 
consin is  a  fine  sandy  loam  soil  with  very  little  clay  but  a  large 
amount  of  organic  matter,  as  may  be  recognized  by  its  black  color, 
yet  it  contains  considerably  less  sulphur  than  sample  2  A  from  the 
Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee  farm  in  Michigan,  which  is  also  a  sandy  loam 
soil,  containing  considerable  coarse  sand  with  sufficient  organic 
matter  to  give  a  black  color. 

It  seems,  then,  that  from  the  sulphur  standpoint,  as  well  as  the 
nitrogen  standpoint,  the  character  of  the  organic  matter  is  of  more 
importance  than  the  amount.  Sulphur,  like  nitrogen,  is  mainly 
present  in  the  proteins,  so  that  a  small  amount  of  high  protein 
organic  matter,  such  as  one  would  obtain  by  plowing  under  leg- 
umes, would  be  more  valuable  than  a  larger  quantity  of  organic 
matter  from  wheat  or  oat  straw  or  cornstalks.  It  seems  probable 
also  that  the  proteins  are  more  readily  decomposed  than  the  non- 
protein organic  matter,  so  that  the  sulphur  and  nitrogen  would  be 
oxidized  more  rapidly  than  the  carbon,  and  the  sulphur  and  nitrogen 
content  might  become  quite  low  when  there  was  still  a  consider- 
able amount  of  carbonaceous  organic  matter  in  the  soil. 

In  all  the  samples  analyzed,  the  sulphur  content  was  less  than 
the  phosphorus  content.  One  of  the  samples  from  Ohio  which 
was  taken  in  a  low  wet  place  was  a  muck,  very  high  in  organic 
matter.     This  soil  had  nearly  as  much  sulphur  as  phosphorus  in 


96  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

the  surface  soil  (no.  9  A),  but  the  subsoil  (no.  9B)  had  only  a  little 
more  than  half  as  much  sulphur  as  phosphorus.  The  difference 
between  the  sulphur  and  phosphorus  contents  in  one  of  the  Mich- 
igan soils  was  not  great.  The  surface  soil  (no.  2  A)  contained 
0.0486  per  cent  sulphur  and  0.0518  per  cent  phosphorus,  while  the 
subsoil  (no.  2  B)  contained  0.0405  per  cent  sulphur  and  0.0561  per 
cent  phosphorus.  All  the  other  samples  were  much  higher  in  phos- 
phorus than  in  sulphur.  The  difference  was  very  great  in  one  of 
the  Indiana  soils,  which  had  over  six  times  as  much  phosphorus  as 
sulphur,  and  in  the  Kentucky  soils,  in  most  of  which  the  phospho- 
rus content  was  from  five  to  eleven  times  as  much  as  the  sulphur. 
In  two  of  the  Kentucky  soils  the  phosphorus  content  was  only  three 
times  as  much  as  the  sulphur,  and  in  one  only  four  times  as  much. 

The  Michigan  soils,  samples  1-5,  were  taken  on  the  Wah-Bee- 
Mee-Mee  farm  at  White  Pigeon,  Michigan.  Samples  i  and  5 
were  sampled  to  three  depths  and  all  the  others  to  two  depths. 
These  soils  are  alluvial  sandy  loams,  varying  from  light  brown  to 
dark  brown  on  the  surface  and  grading  into  a  yellow  sandy  subsoil 
containing  some  gravel.  The  hght  colored  .samples  contained 
more  sand  in  both  surface  and  subsoil  and  were  lower  in  volatile 
matter,  sulphur,  and  phosphorus,  than  the  darker  colored  ones. 
All  were  low  in  both  sulphur  and  phosphorus,  but  the  sulphur  is 
lower  than  phosphorus  in  all  the  samples.  With  the  exception  of 
sample  i,  the  sulphur  was  always  lower  in  the  subsoil  than  in  the 
surface  soil. ' 

The  Ohio  soils,  samples  6-9,  were  taken  near  Copley,  Ohio. 
Nos.  6,  7,  and  8  are  upland  silt  loams  containing  some  sand.  The 
surface  soil  is  a  yellow  brown  grading  into  a  uniformly  light  yellow 
subsoil,  which  indicates  good  underdrainage  as  well  as  good  sur- 
face drainage.  These  soils  apparently  belong  to  the  type  mapped 
as  the  Wooster  silt  loam.  The  sulphur  content  was  low  in  both 
surface  and  subsoil,  while  the  phosphorus  content  was  fairly  good 
in  the  surface  but  low  in  the  subsoil.  In  every  sample  the  sub- 
soil was  lower  in  volatile  matter,  sulphur,  and  phosphorus  than  the 
corresponding  surface  soil. 

Sample  9  is  poorly  drained,  and  the  surface  soil  has  a  large 
amount  of  organic  matter  with  some  silt,  sand,  and  a  little  clay. 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  97 

The  subsoil  has  much  less  organic  matter,  but  the  proportion  of 
its  other  constituents  is  about  the  same  as  in  the  surface.  The 
surface  soil  is  very  high  in  volatile  matter,  sulphur,  and  phosphorus, 
while  the  subsoil  is  very  low  in  both  sulphur  and  phosphorus. 

The  Wisconsin  soils,  samples  10  and  11,  are  from  near  Beloit, 
Wisconsin.  They  are  fine  sandy  loams,  dark  brown  on  the  surface 
and  a  Kghter  brown  in  the  subsoil.  In  both  samples  the  volatile 
matter,  sulphur,  and  phosphorus  are  higher  in  the  surface  soil  than 
in  the  subsoil.  The  sulphur  content  is  low  in  both  surface  soil 
and  subsoil  in  both  samples,  but  the  phosphorus  is  good  in  the 
surface  soil  of  both  samples,  fair  in  the  subsoil  of  sample  10,  and 
poor  in  the  subsoil  of  sample  11.  Both  sulphur  and  phosphorus 
are  lower  in  the  subsoil  than  the  surface  soil  in  both  samples. 

The  Indiana  soil  samples  (nos.  12-18)  were  taken  near  Charles- 
town,  Clark  County,  Indiana.  This  region  is  underlain  by  Ume- 
stone  rock,  but  the  rock  has  been  covered  by  a  thick  layer  of 
windblown  material,  from  which  most  of  the  soils  were  formed.  All 
the  soils  sampled  were  formed  from  this  windblown  material  except 
no.  12,  which  was  taken  on  the  bluff  of  a  small  stream  where  there 
was  considerable  erosion.  It  seems  that  the  erosion  has  removed 
the  greater  part  of  the  windblown  material,  and  to  a  large  extent 
the  soil  is  formed  from  the  underlying  Hmestone.  This  is  probably 
the  reason  why  this  sample  resembles  in  general  appearance  and  in 
chemical  composition  the  Kentucky  soils  rather  than  the  adjacent 
soils  from  the  windblown  material  or  loess.  Sample  12  has  a  light 
brown  silt  loam  surface  soil  grading  into  a  reddish  yellow  subsoil. 
Like  the  other  Indiana  soils,  the  volatile  matter  and  sulphur  are  low, 
but  the  phosphorus  is  high  like  most  of  the  Kentucky  soils. 

The  loessal  soils  include  two  types,  the  one  with  good  natural 
underdrainage  and  the  other  with  poor  drainage.  The  former, 
which  includes  samples  15-18,  is  a  yellow  gray  silt  loam  in  the  sur- 
face soil  and  a  yellow  silt  loam  in  the  subsoil.  The  latter,  which 
includes  samples  13  and  14,  has  a  gray  or  sUghtly  yellowish  gray 
silt  loam  surface  soil  underlain  by  a  gray  or  gray  and  yellow  mottled 
silt  loam  subsoil.  Both  are  poorly  drained,  but  sample  13  is  more 
nearly  level  and  has  more  gray  color  in  both  surface  and  subsoil. 
All  the  samples  from  both  types  are  low  in  volatile  matter,  sulphur, 


98  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [febrttaky 

and  phosphorus.  Samples  15  and  16  were  taken  a  few  rods  apart, 
the  former  from  a  field  which  had  been  in  alfalfa  for  several  years, 
and  the  latter  from  virgin  land.  Both  have  practically  the  same 
phosphorus  content,  but  the  sulphur  is  much  higher  in  the  virgin 
soil. 

All  the  soil  samples  from  Kentucky  (nos.  19-34)  are  residual 
limestone  soils,  but  no.  34  was  derived  from  the  Trenton  limestone, 
which  is  high  in  phosphorus,  while  the  others  are  all  from  the 
Cincinnati  limestone,  but  no.  28  was  taken  from  soil  derived 
from  Cincinnati  limestone,  but  it  was  only  a  short  distance  from 
the  division  line  between  the  Cincinnati  and  Trenton  formations,  and 
had  probably  received  some  material  from  the  Trenton  formation. 
Samples  19-27  are  from  Mason  County,  while  samples  28-34  are 
from  Mercer  County.  Samples  19  and  21  are  clay  loams,  while  20 
and  22-27  3.re  silt  loams.  All  are  Hght  brown  to  grayish  brown  in 
color.  Sample  34  is  a  heavy  clay  loam,  sample  28  is  a  heavy  silt 
loam  or  light  clay  loam,  while  samples  29-33  ^.re  silt  loams. 
Samples  31  and  33  are  quite  gray  in  color,  and  $t,  contains  iron 
concretions.  No.  31  is  known  locally  as  whitQ  oak  land,  and  both 
are  recognized  as  poor  soils.  All  the  other  samples  are  light  brown 
except  no.  34,  which  is  a  grayish  brown.  All  the  Kentucky  soils 
are  low  in  volatile  matter  except  the  clay  loams,  in  which  part  of 
the  volatile  matter  is  probably  water  of  combination.  All  are  low 
in  sulphur,  no.  34  being  the  only  one  above  0.03  per  cent.  This 
sample  is  from  the  Trenton  formation  and  contains  many  un- 
weathered  fragments  of  limestone.  It  is  possible  that  the  sul- 
phur content  as  well  as  the  phosphorus  content  of  the  Trenton 
limestone  may  be  higher  than  in  other  formations.  No.  34  con- 
tains 0.3407  per  cent  of  phosphorus,  which  is  eleven  times  as  great 
as  the  sulphur  content.  This  is  much  higher  than  any  of  the  others, 
but  all  the  others  are  high  in  phosphorus. 

Relation  between  amounts  of  sulphur  and  phosphorus 
removed  by  crops  and  sulphur  and  phosphorus  contents  of 
SOILS. — A  better  idea  of  the  supply  of  sulphur  and  phosphorus  in 
the  soil  can  be  obtained  if  the  pounds  per  acre  of  these  elements 
found  in  the  surface  soil  is  compared  with  the  amounts  removed  by 
some  of  our  common  crops.     Table  II  gives  the  amounts  of  sulphur 


1922] 


WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY 


99 


and  phosphorus  removed  by  some  of  the  common  crops.  The 
yields  per  acre  and  the  amounts  of  phosphorus  removed  by  these 
yields  are  taken  from  Hopkins  and  Pettit's  (34)  table,  while 
the  amounts  of  sulphur  removed  are  computed  from  Hart  and 
Peterson's  analyses. 

As  pointed  out  by  Hopkins  and  Pettit  (34),  these  yields  are 
exceptionally  large,  but  they  have  been  obtained  by  some  farmers, 
and  others  may  obtain  them  under  proper  systems  of  farming.  If, 
however,  smaller  yields  are  removed,  it  will  not  prevent  soil  deple- 
tion, but  will  only  delay  soil  exhaustion  if  the  elements  removed 

TABLE  II 

Pounds  per  acre  removed  by  farm  crops 


Crop 


Pounds  per  acre  removed 

ANNUALLY 

Yield  per  acre 

Sulphur 

Phosphorus 

100  bushels 

7.8 

17.0 

100  bushels 

5-8 

II. 0 

50  bushels 

S-i 

12.0 

3  tons 

II. 4 

9.0 

4  tons 

13.0 

20.0 

8  tons 

46.0 

36.0 

300  bushels 

24.7 

13.0 

Com,  grain .  .  . 
Oats,  grain . . . 
Wheat,  grain . 
Timothy,  hay. 
Clover,  hay.  . 
Alfalfa,  hay.  . 
Potatoes 


are  not  returned  in  some  form.  In  actual  practice,  failure  to 
return  to  the  soil  the  elements  of  plant  food  which  are  removed  in 
the  crops  will  result  in  a  gradual  decrease  in  yields,  so  that  the 
amounts  of  plant  food  removed  will  gradually  become  less.  It  is 
impossible  to  determine  the  time  when  complete  exhaustion  will 
take  place,  but  a  comparison  of  the  amounts  of  plant  food  removed 
by  large  crops  with  the  amounts  present  in  the  soil  will  emphasize 
the  importance  of  renewing  the  supply  in  the  soil  before  the  soil 
supply  is  reduced  below  that  necessary  for  satisfactory  crop  yields. 
Table  III  gives  the  pounds  per  acre  of  sulphur  and  phosphorus  in 
the  surface  soils  analyzed  and  the  number  of  years'  supply  of  each 
for  several  common  farm  crops,  if  maximum  crops  are  removed, 
such  as  are  given  in  table  II. 

Table  III  shows  that  all  the  soils  are  too  low  in  sulphur  to  grow 
alfalfa  for  40  years,  while  22  of  them  have  phosphorus  enough  to 


lOO 


BOTANICAL  GAZETTE 


[FEBRUARY 


grow  alfalfa  40  years  or  longer,  provided,  of  course,  none  of  these 
elements  is  added  in  any  way  and  none  removed  except  in  the  crops. 
Sample  9 A,  which  has  the  highest  sulphur  content,  has  sulphur 

TABLE  III 
Pounds  per  acre  of  sulphur  and  phosphorus  and  NtnuBER  of  years'  supply 

FOR  various  crops  IF  MAXIMUM  CROPS   ARE   REMOVED 


Son,  NO. 


SULPHtTR 


No.  of  years'  supply  for 


Corn 


Wheat 


Timo- 
thy 


Clover 


Alfalfa 


Phosphorus 


2  la  S 


No.  of  years'  supply  for 


Corn 


Wheat 


Timo- 
thy 


Clover 


Alfalfa 


lA 
2A 
3A 
4A 
SA 
6A 
7A 
8A 
9A 

10  A 

iiA 

12. . 

13- • 

14.. 

I5-- 

16.. 

17.. 

18.. 

19.. 

20. . 

21. . 

22. . 

23- • 
24.. 

2S-- 
26.. 
27.. 
28.. 
29.. 
30.. 

31.  • 
32.. 
33- • 
34.• 


316 
972 
366 
722 
638 
464 
668 
562 
1810 
702 
490 
344 
330 
236 
310 
466 
366 
310 
S16 
464 
262 
244 
412 
528 
318 
472 
306 
490 
470 
322 
506 
500 
326 
626 


40 

125 

47 
93 
82 
60 
86 
72 
232 
90 
63 
44 
42 

30 
40 
60 

47 
40 
66 
60 
34 
31 
SZ 
68 

41 
61 

39 
63 
60 

41 

6S 
64 
42 
80 


62 
191 

72 
142 
125 

91 
131 
no 

138 
96 
67 
6S 
46 
61 
91 
72 
61 

lOI 

91 
51 


104 
64 
93 
SO 
96 
92 
63 
99 
98 
64 

122 


28 
85 
30 
63 
S6 
41 
60 
SO 

159 
62 

43 
30 
29 
21 
28 
41 
32 
28 

45 
41 
23 
22 

36 
46 
28 
41 
27 
43 
41 
28 

44 
44 
29 

55 


24 

75 
28 
56 
49 
36 
SI 
43 
139 
54 
38 
26 

25 

18 
24 
36 
28 

24 
40 
36 
20 
19 
32 
41 
24 
36 
24 
38 
36 

25 

39 
38 
25 
48 


7 
21 

8 
16 

14 
10 

14 
12 

39 
15 
II 

7 
7 
5 
7 
10 


10 
6 
5 
9 

II 

7 
10 

7 


720 

1036 

780 


1028 
1576 
1542 
1 164 
1878 
1488 
1590 
2108 
1256 

980 
1132 
1128 

984 
1156 
3794 
1598 
3272 
2596 
1536 
2754 
1954 
353° 
2740 
4710 
3000 
3558 
2014 

3454 
2612 
6814 


42 
61 
46 


60 
86 
63 


80 

"5 

83 


36 
52 
39 


60 
93 
91 
68 
no 
88 

94 
124 

74 
58 
67 
66 
58 
68 
223 

94 
192 

153 

90 

162 

115 
208 
161 
277 
176 
209 
118 
203 

154 
401 


86 

131 
129 

97 
156 
124 

^3Z 
176 

105 

82 

94 

94 

82 

96 

316 

133 

273 

216 

128 

230 

163 

294 

228 

393 
250 
296 
168 
288 
218 
568 


114 

175 
171 
129 
209 

165 
177 

234 
139 
109 
126 

125 
109 
128 
422 
177 

364 
288 
171 
306 
216 
392 
304 
523 
333 
395 
224 

384 
290 

757 


SI 

79 
77 
58 
94 
74 
80 

105 

63 

49 

57 

56 

49 

58 

190 

80 

164 

130 

77 

138 

98 

177 

137 

236 

ISO 

178 

lOI 

173 
131 
341 


20 
29 
22 


29 
44 
43 
32 
52 
41 
44 
S9 
35 
27 

31 
31 
27 
32 

105 
44 
91 
72 
43 
77 
54 
98 
76 

131 
83 
99 
56 
96 
73 


enough  for  39  years  of  alfalfa  and  phosphorus  enough  for  52  years 
of  alfalfa.  Only  one  other  soil,  no.  2  A,  had  enough  sulphur  for  20 
years  of  alfalfa,  while  three  soils,  nos.  19,  28,  and  34,  have  enough 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  loi 

phosphorus  for  loo  or  more  years  of  alfalfa.  No.  34  has  phosphorus 
enough  to  grow  alfalfa  189  years,  but  sulphur  enough  for  only  14 
years.  The  phosphorus  content  of  no.  28  is  sufl&cient  to  grow 
alfalfa  for  131  years,  but  the  same  crop  would  deplete  the  sulphur 
in  II  years.  All  these  soils  have  sufficient  phosphorus  to  grow 
maximum  yields  of  alfalfa  for  20  years  or  longer,  while  all  but  two 
would  be  depleted  of  sulphur  in  less  than  20  years. 

Of  the  other  crops  mentioned,  corn,  wheat,  and  clover  remove 
smaller  amounts  of  sulphur  than  phosphorus;  while  timothy,  like 
alfalfa,  removes  more  sulphur  than  phosphorus.  Timothy,  how- 
ever, removes  only  about  one-fourth  as  much  sulphur,  and  one- 
fourth  as  much  phosphorus  as  alfalfa,  so  that  the  supply  of  each 
would  last  correspondingly  longer,  yet  soil  9  A  is  the  only  one  that 
carries  sufficient  sulphur  for  100  crops  of  timothy.  Soil  9  A  has 
sulphur  enough  to  grow  timothy  159  years,  clover  139  years,  corn 
232  years,  and  wheat  355  years.  No.  34  has  phosphorus  enough 
for  401  com  crops,  568  wheat  crops,  and  341  clover  crops;  yet  the 
sulphur  would  be  depleted  by  80  corn  crops,  122  wheat  crops,  or 
48  clover,  crops.  The  lowest  phosphorus  content  is  in  soil  i  A,  a 
sandy  loam  soil,  which  has  720  pounds  of  phosphorus  in  the  surface 
7  inches  of  soil.  The  phosphorus  in  this  soil  would  be  depleted 
by  growing  corn  42  years,  wheat  60  years,  timothy  80  years,  clover 
36  years,  or  alfalfa  20  years.  In  the  same  soil  the  sulphur  would 
be  removed  by  40  years  of  corn,  62  of  wheat,  28  of  timothy,  24  of 
clover,  or  7  of  alfalfa. 

Table  III  shows  the  importance  of  both  sulphur  and  phosphorus 
if  maximum  crops  of  legumes,  particularly  alfalfa,  are  to  be  grown. 
It  also  shows  that,  in  most  soils,  sulphur  is  more  likely  to  be  defi- 
cient than  phosphorus.  It  does  not  take  into  account  the  leaching 
of  these  elements  from  the  soil,  which  is  practically  nil  in  the  case 
of  phosphorus  and  very  high  in  the  case  of  sulphur;  nor  the  supply 
in  the  rain  water,  which  is  nil  in  the  case  of  phosphorus  and  may  be 
quite  high  in  the  case  of  sulphur  near  cities  in  the  humid  regions. 
Whether  the  amount  of  sulphur  lost  in  the  drainage  water  exceeds 
that  gained  in  the  rain  water  is  still  unknown.  It  is  certain  that 
the  amount  of  leaching  will  vary  with  the  character  of  the  soil,  the 
rainfall,  and  the  character  of  the  plant  growth.     The  amount  of 


I02  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

sulphur  in  the  rain  water  will  vary  with  the  rainfall  and  the  near- 
ness to  cities  where  large  amounts  of  soft  coal  are  used.  It  is 
possible  that,  in  some  places  under  certain  conditions,  the  amount 
of  sulphur  brought  down  in  the  rain  water  will  equal  or  exceed  that 
lost  in  the  drainage,  but  that  in  other  places  and  under  other  con- 
ditions the  loss  will  exceed  the  gain.  Field  experiments  are  needed 
to  see  whether  the  plants  will  respond  to  sulphur  fertilization  under 
field  conditions.  Remarkable  responses  were  obtained  by  Judge 
Peters,  John  Binns,  and  Edmund  Ruffin  in  the  Eastern  United 
States  (Crocker,  15),  and  have  recently  been  obtained  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  by  Reimer  and  Tartar  (58)  in  Oregon,  and  by 
Olson  (54)  in  Washington.  To  secure  further  information  along 
this  fine,  cooperative  experiments  were  conducted  on  some  farms 
in  Indiana  and  Kentucky  from  which  some  of  the  samples  reported 
in  table  I  were  taken. 

Cooperative  field  experiments  with  gypsum 

The  field  experiments  were  conducted  in  cooperation  with  the 
farm  owners.  The  farm  owners  were  to  apply  gypsum  and  report 
on  the  effect  on  yields,  if  any.  Some  of  the  farmers  failed  to  make 
any  report,  and  those  who  did  gave  no  weights,  so  that  the  results 
are  not  as  satisfactory  as  could  be  desired.  Results  reported  are 
as  follows. 

In  the  Indiana  experiments,  gypsum  was  applied  to  alfalfa,  red 
clover,  and  tobacco.  The  only  report  received  was  with  regard  to 
the  tobacco.  This  tobacco  field  was  on  the  farm  of  Mr.  Ross, 
southwest  of  Charlestown,  Indiana.  This  is  the  field  from  which 
sample  12  was  taken,  and,  as  shown  in  tables  I  and  III,  is  low  in 
sulphur  and  high  in  phosphorus.  Mr.  Ross  reports  a  marked 
increase  in  yield  of  tobacco  from  the  use  of  gypsum  on  this  field, 
but  gives  no  quantitative  data. 

Gypsum  was  applied  to  alfalfa,  red  clover,  sweet  clover,  and 
tobacco  in  Mason  County,  Kentucky.  The  crops  were  injured  so 
badly  by  weather  conditions,  however,  that  no  results  were  obtained. 

In  Mercer  County,  Kentucky,  gypsum  was  applied  to  tobacco, 
clover,  and  alfalfa.  Of  the  farmers  responding,  Mr.  Sharp  reported 
no  increase  in  tobacco,  while  Mr.  Fowler  reported  an  increase  in 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  103 

the  second  clover  crop,  and  Mr.  Tuomey  an  increase  in  alfalfa. 
Neither  of  these  men  weighed  the  hay,  so  the  results  are  not  quan- 
titative. Mr.  Sharp's  field,  from  which  sample  30  was  taken,  is 
low  in  sulphur  and  high  in  phosphorus,  but  it  showed  evidences  of 
being  farmed  hard,  and  was  evidently  low  in  nitrogen,  which  was 
probably  the  limiting  element  for  a  non-leguminous  crop  Uke 
tobacco.  Mr.  Fowler's  soil,  no.  32,  has  0.0250  per  cent  sulphur 
and  0.1727  per  cent  phosphorus,  equivalent  to  500  pounds  of  sul- 
phur, and  3454  pounds  of  phosphorus,  in  the  surface  soil;  so  sulphur 
was  probably  the  limiting  element  for  clover.  Mr.  Tuomey  's  field, 
sample  34,  had  6814  pounds  of  phosphorus,  the  highest  of  the 
samples  analyzed.  This  sample  also  contained  small  fragments  of 
limestone,  so  that  there  was  an  abimdance  of  lime.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  sulphur  content,  626  pounds,  although  higher  than 
in  many  samples,  is  probably  rather  low  for  a  plant  like  alfalfa, 
which  uses  such  large  quantities  of  sulphur. 

These  results  are  not  conclusive,  but  it  seems  probable  that 
sulphur  may  be  a  limiting  element  on  some  of  these  soils,  and  that 
gypsum  is  a  satisfactory  source  of  supply  for  this  element.  More 
field  experiments  are  necessary  in  the  humid  part  of  the  United 
States,  and  great  care  in  conducting  these  experiments  is  necessary 
if  satisfactory  results  are  to  be  obtained.  Experiments  should  be 
conducted  through  several  years  to  avoid  weather  conditions,  which 
may  be  the  hmiting  factor  in  some  years.  On  some  soils  drainage 
is  necessary,  and  no  fertilizer  treatment  will  have  any  effect  until 
this  is  done.  Most  soils  in  the  humid  part  of  the  United  States 
are  acid.  A  large  part  of  them  are  so  acid  that  liming  is  necessary 
before  any  other  treatment  is  effective,  especially  for  leguminous 
crops.  Table  I  shows  a  high  phosphorus  content  in  some  of  the 
soils  reported  in  this  paper,  but  those  are  exceptional  soils.  As  a 
general  rule  soils  are  deficient  in  phosphorus,  and  fanners  report 
increases  in  crop  yields  for  the  use  of  acid  phosphate.  It  is  impos- 
sible, however,  to  tell  how  much  of  the  increase  is  due  to  the  phos- 
phorus and  how  much  to  the  sulphur  in  the  acid  phosphate.  A 
comparison  of  acid  phosphate  with  rock  phosphate  and  gypsum, 
and  with  gypsum  alone,  and  rock  phosphate  alone  would  give  some 
valuable  results. 


I04  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

Many  of  the  Illinois  experiment  fields  include  three  check  plots 
in  each  series.  These  check  plots  are  all  untreated  and  are  only  a 
short  distance  apart,  yet  some  of  them  differ  widely  in  crop  yields. 
It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  neighboring  plots  receiving  the 
same  fertilizer  treatment  would  differ  as  widely.  These  differences 
due  to  factors  not  under  the  control  of  the  investigators  make  the 
probable  error  large,  and  when  only  one  plot  of  each  treatment  is 
used,  the  differences  between  plots  with  different  treatments  must 
be  great  before  one  can  assume  that  the  treatment  has  been  effec- 
tive. Where  the  differences  are  as  great  as  in  the  work  of  Reimer 
and  Tartar  (58)  and  of  Olson  (54),  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
treatment  has  been  effective,  but  in  many  of  the  field  experiments 
in  different  parts  of  the  country  the  differences  are  too  small  to 
justify  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them,  as  the  probable  error  is 
so  great.  Where  a  number  of  plots  of  each  treatment  are  used,  the 
uncontrollable  factors  tend  to  neutralize  each  other  and  the  prob- 
able error  is  reduced.  As  the  number  of  plots  of  each  treatment 
increases,  smaller  average  differences  are  necessary  to  be  signifi- 
cant. It  seems  probable  that  three  plots  of  each  treatment  are 
necessary  if  satisfactory  results  are  to  be  obtained.  In  the  past 
investigators  have  had  a  tendency  to  scatter  field  experiments  over 
a  number  of  widely  separated  fields  on  the  same  soil  type.  It  seems 
probable  that  more  satisfactory  results  would  be  obtained  if  the 
work  were  confined  to  one  field  on  each  soil  type,  and  each  field 
had  from  three  to  five  plots  of  each  treatment. 

Summary 

1.  Composite  soil  samples  from  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Michigan, 
Ohio,  and  Wisconsin  were  analyzed  for  total  sulphur,  total  phos- 
phorus, and  volatile  matter  (loss  on  ignition),  and  cooperative 
fertilizer  experiments  with  gypsum  were  conducted  in  fields  in 
Indiana  and  Kentucky. 

2.  The  analytical  data  show  a  general  relation  between  the  sul- 
phur content  and  loss  on  ignition  in  soil  samples  from  the  same  soil 
type  or  closely  related  soil  types,  but  the  relation  is  not  apparent 
when  different  soil  types  are  compared. 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  .  105 

3.  The  sulphur  contents  in  the  surface  soil  vary  from  0.0118  to 
0.0905  per  cent,  while  the  phosphorus  contents  vary  from  0.0360 
to  0.3407  per  cent.  All  the  upland  soils  and  most  of  the  alluvial 
soils  are  low  in  sulphur.  Most  of  the  Kentucky  soils  and  one  of 
the  Indiana  soils  are  high  in  phosphorus.  This  is  undoubtedly  due 
to  the  influence  of  the  rock  from  which  the  soils  were  formed,  as  all 
the  Kentucky  samples  were  from  soils  derived  either  from  the  Tren- 
ton limestone  or  the  Cincinnati  limestone,  both  of  which  are  high 
in  phosphorus  content. 

4.  The  sulphur  and  phosphorus  contents  were  calculated  to 
pounds  per  acre  in  the  surface  soil,  and  compared  with  the  amounts 
of  sulphur  and  phosphorus  removed  by  maximum  crops  of  corn, 
wheat,  timothy,  clover,  and  alfalfa.  The  highest  sulphur  content 
is  sufficient  for  only  39  years  of  alfalfa,  139  of  clover,  159  of  timothy, 
355  of  wheat,  or  232  of  corn;  while  the  lowest  sulphur  content  is 
suflScient  for  only  5  years  of  alfalfa,  18  of  clover,  21  of  timothy,  46 
of  wheat,  or  30  of  com.  The  lowest  phosphorus  content  is  equal 
to  the  amount  removed  by  42  years  of  corn,  60  of  wheat,  80  of 
timothy,  36  of  clover,  or  20  of  alfalfa.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would 
take  401  years  of  com,  568  of  wheat,  757  of  timothy,  341  of  clover, 
or  189  of  alfalfa  to  remove  as  much  phosphorus  as  is  found  in  the 
soil  with  the  highest  phosphorus  content. 

5.  On  some  of  the  soils  tobacco,  clover,  and  alfalfa  have  been 
benefited  by  the  use  of  gypsum.  The  results,  however,  are  not 
quantitative.  More  field  experiments  are  needed  and  greater  care 
should  be  taken  to  eliminate  other  factors  as  far  as  possible.  Each 
treatment  should  be  repHcated  to  reduce  the  probable  error. 

This  investigation  was  conducted  under  a  research  fellowship 
from  the  Gypsum  Industries  Association.  The  work  was  performed 
at  the  University  of  Chicago  in  the  Hull  Botanical  Laboratory  under 
the  direction  of  Dr.  William  Crocker.  The  author  wishes  to 
thank  the  Gypsum  Industries  Association  for  their  kindness  in 
fumishing  the  fellowship  and  Dr.  Crocker  for  his  kind  and  helpful 
advice  and  criticism.  Thanks  are  also  due  Dr.  Frederick  Koch 
for  his  kind  advice  and  criticism  of  analytical  methods. 

University  of  Illinois 
Urbana,  III. 


io6  .  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

LITERATURE  CITED 

1.  Ames,  J.  W.,  and  Richmond,  T.  E.,  Fermentation  of  manure  treated  with 
sulphur  and  sulphates.  Changes  in  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  content. 
Soil  Science  4 :  79-89.  1917. 

2.  Effect  of  sulphofication  and  nitrification  on  rock  phosphate.     Soil 

Science  6:351-364.  1918. 

3.  BouLLANGER,  E.,  and  DuGARDiN,  M.,  Mechanisme  de  Taction  du  soufre. 
Compt.  Rend.  Acad.  Sci.  Paris  155:327-329.  1912. 

4.  Bradley,  C.  E.,  The  reaction  of  lime  and  gypsum  on  some  Oregon  soils. 
Jour.  Ind.  and  Engin.  Chem.  2:529-530.  1910. 

5.  Brezeale,  J.F.,  and  Briggs,  L.J.,  Concentration  of  potassium  in  ortho- 
clase  solutions  not  a  measure  of  its  availability  to  wheat  seedlings.  Jour. 
Agric.  Res.  20:615-621.  1921. 

6.  Briggs,  L.  J.,  and  Brezeale,  J.  F.,  Availability  of  potash  in  certain  ortho- 
clase  bearing  soils  as  affected  by  lime  or  gypsum.  Jour.  Agric*  Res. 
8:21-28.  1917. 

7.  Brioux,  Ch.,  and  Guerbet,  M.,  L'action  fertilisante  du  soufre.  Annales 
Sci.  Agron.  30:395-396.  1913- 

8.  Brooks,  W,  P.,  Alfalfa.  Mass.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  BuU.  154.  1914  (p.  158). 

9.  ,  Phosphates  in  Massachusetts  agriculture,  importance,  selection, 

and  use.    Mass.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  162.  191 5. 

10.  Brown,  P.  E.,  and  Gwinn,  A.  R.,  Effect  of  sulphur  and  manure  on  avail- 
ability of  rock  phosphate  in  soil.    Iowa  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Res.  Bull.  43: 

373-379-  1917. 

11.  Brown,  P.  E.,  and  Kellogg,  E.  H,,  Sulphofication  in  soils.  Iowa  Agric. 
Exp.  Sta.  Res.  Bull.  18:104-110.  1914. 

12.  Brown,  P.  E.,  and  Warner,  H.  W.,  The  production  of  available  phosphorus 
from  rock  phosphate  by  composting  with  sulphur  and  manure.  Soil 
Science  4:269-282,  1917. 

13.  Browne,  J.  D.,  The  field  book  of  manures  or  the  American  muck  book. 
1854  (pp.  68-75). 

14.  Bruckner,  W.  H.,  American  manures.  1872  (p.  65). 

15.  Crocker,  Wm,,  History  of  the  use  of  gypsum  as  a  fertilizer.  (Unpub- 
lished article.) 

16.  Demolon,  M.  a.,  Recherches  sur  Taction  fertilisante  du  soufre.  Compt. 
R.end.  Acad.  Sci.  Paris  156:725-728.  1913. 

17.  Duley,  F.  L.,  The  relation  of  sulphur  to  soil  productivity.  Jour.  Amer. 
Soc.  Agron.  8:154-160.  1916. 

18.  Dymond,  T.  S.,  Hughes,  F.,  and  Jure,  C.  W.  C,  The  influence  of  sulphates 
as  manures  upon  the  yield  and  feeding  value  of  crops.  Jour.  Agric.  Sci.  i : 
217-229.  1905. 

19.  Eaton,  S.  V.,  Sulphur  content  of  soils  and  its  relation  to  plant  nutrition. 
(Unpublished  article.) 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  107 

20.  Ellett,  W.  B.,  and  Harris,  W.  G.,  Cooperative  experiments  for  the 
composting  of  phosphate  rock  and  sulphur.  Soil  Science,  10:315-325. 
1920. 

21.  Feilitzen,  H.  von,  tJber  die  Verwendung  der  Schwefelblute  zur  Bekam{)f- 
ung  des  Kartoffelschorfes  und  als  indirekes  Diingemittel.  Fiihling's 
Landw.  Zeit.  62:239.  1913. 

22.  FRAPS,  G.  S.,  The  effect  of  additions  on  the  availability  of  soil  potash,  and 
the  preparation  of  sugar  humus.  Texas  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  190.  1-30, 
1916. 

23.  Fred,  E.  B.,  and  Hart,  E.  B.,  The  comparative  effect  of  phosphates 
and  sulphates  on  soil  bacteria.  Wis.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Res.  Bull.  35. 
pp.  42-44.  1915- 

24.  Greaves,  J.  E.,  Carter,  E.  F.,  and  Goldthorpe,  H.  C,  Influence  of 
salts  on  nitric  nitrogen  in  soUs.    Jour.  Agric.  Res.   16:107-135.  1919. 

25.  Griffiths,  A.B.,  A  treatise  on  manures.  1889  (pp.  247-248). 

26.  Hall,  A.  D.,  Book  of  Rothamsted  experiments.  1917. 

27.  Hart,  E.  B.,  and  Peterson,  W.  H.,  Sulphur  requirements  of  farm  crops 
in  relation  to  the  soil  and  air  supply.  Wis.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Res.  Bull, 
no.  14.  1911. 

28.  ,  Sulphur  requirements  of  farm  crops.    Jour.  Amer.  Chem.  Soc. 

33:549.  191 1. 

29.  Hart,  E.  B.,  and  Tottingham,  W.  E.,  Relation  of  sulphur  compounds 
to  plant  nutrition.    Jour.  Agric.  Res.  5 :  233-248.  1915. 

30.  Heinrich,  R.,  Concerning  the  conservation  of  manure.  E.S.R.  5:329,  330. 
1 893-1 894.    Abst.  from  Landw.  presse  20:825.  1893. 

31.  HiLGARD,  E.  W.,  Soils;  their  formation,  properties,  composition,  and 
relation  to  climate  and  plant  growth.  1906  (p.  43). 

32.  Hopkins,  C.  G.,  Soil  fertility  and  permanent  agriculture.  1910  (pp.  39, 
189). 

33.  Hopkins,  C.  G.,  Mosier,  J.  G.,  Pettit,  J.  H.,  and  Readhimer,  J.  E., 
Hardin  County  soUs.    111.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.,  Soil  Report  no.  3.  1912. 

34.  Hopkins,  C.  G.,  and  Pettit,  J.  H.,  The  fertility  in  Illinois  soils.  111. 
Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  no.  123.  1908  (pp.  533-53S). 

35.  Hunt,  Thos.  F.,  Soil  fertility.    Pa.  State  Coll.  Bull.  no.  90.  1909. 

36.  La  WES,  J.  B.,  and  Gilbert,  J.  H.,  Report  on  the  growth  of  red  clover  by 
different  manures.    Jour.  Roy.  Agric.  Soc.  21:194.  i860. 

37.  LiEBiG,  J.  von,  Principles  of  agricultural  chemistry.  1855.  Transl.  by 
Wm.  Gregory,  p.  99. 

38.  Lint,  H.  C,  The  influence  of  sulphur  on  soil  acidity.  Jour.  Ind.  and 
Engin.  Chem.  6:747.  1914. 

39.  LiPMAN,  C.  B.,  and  Gericke,  W.  F.,  Does  calcium  carbonate  or  calcium 
sulphate  treatment  affect  the  solubility  of  the  soil  constituents?  Univ. 
CaUf.  Publ.  Agric.  Sci.  3:271-282.  1918. 


lo8  BOTANICAL  GAZETTE  [February 

40.  — ,  The  significance  of  the  sulphur  in  sulphate  of  ammonia  applied  to 

certain  soils.     Soil  Science  5:81-86.  1918. 

41.  LiPMAN,  J.  G.,  and  Joffe,  J.  S.,  The  influence  of  initial  reaction  on  the 
oxidation  of  sulphur  and  the  formation  of  available  phosphates.  Soil 
Science  10:327-332.  1920. 

42.  LiPMAN,  J.  G.,  and  McLean,  H.  C,  Sulphur-phosphate  composts  under 
field  conditions.     Soil  Science  5:243-250.  1918. 

43.  LiPMAN,  J.  G.,  McLean.  H.  C.,  and  Lint,  H.  C.,  Sulphur  oxidation  in 
soUs  and  its  effect  on  the  availability  of  mineral  phosphates.  Soil  Science 
2:498-538.  1916. 

44.  Lyon,  T.  L.,  and  Bizzell,  J.,  Lysimeter  experiments.  Cornell  Univ. 
Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Mem.  12.  19 18. 

45.  McCall,  a.  G.,  and  Smith,  A.  M.,  Effect  of  manure-sulphur  composts 
upon  the  availability  of  the  potassium  of  greensands.  Jour.  Agric.  Res. 
19:239-255.  1920. 

46.  McCooL,  M.  M.,  and  Millar,  C.  E.,  Effect  of  calcium  sulphate  on  the 
solubility  of  soils.    Jour.  Agric.  Res.  19:47-54.  1920. 

47.  MacIntire,  W.  H.,  Willis,  L.  G.,  and  Holding,  W.  A.,  The  divergent 
effects  of  lime  and  magnesia  upon  the  conservation  of  soil  sulphur.  Soil 
Science  4:231-237.  1917. 

48.  McLean,  H.  C.,  The  oxidation  of  sulphur  by  micro-organisms  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  availability  of  phosphates.     Soil  Science  5:251-290.  1918. 

49.  McMillar,  p.  R.,  Influence  of  gypsum  upon  the  solubility  of  potash  in 
soUs.    Jour.  Agric.  Res.  14:61-66.  1918. 

50.  Mares,  M.  H.,  Des  transformations  que  subit  le  soufre  en  poudre  (fleur 
de  soufre  et  soufre  triture)  quand  il  est  repandu  sur  le  sol.  Compt.  Rend. 
Acad.  Sci.  Paris  69:974-979.  1869. 

51.  Miller,  H,  G.,  Sulphates  affecting  plant  growth  and  composition.  Jour. 
Agric.  Res.  17:87-101.  1919. 

52.  Morse,  F.  W.,  and  Curry,  B.  E.,  The  availability  of  the  soil  potash  in 
clay  and  clay  loam  soils.  N.  H.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  142.  pp.  49-51. 
1909. 

53.  NoLTE,  Otto,  tlber  die  Ursache  der  stickstoffverluste  aus  Jauche  und 
Stallmist.    Landw.  Vers.  Stat.  96:309-324.  1920. 

54.  Olson,  Geo.  A.,  Unpublished  work  of  the  Chemistry  Department,  Washing- 
ton State  College. 

55.  Peterson,  W.  H.,  Forms  of  sulphur  in  plant  materials  and  their  variation 
with  the  soil  supply.    Jour.  Amer.  Chem,  Soc.  36:1290-1300.  1914. 

56.  Pfeiffer,  Th.,  and  Blanck,  E.,  Landw.  Vers.  Stats,  83:359-383.   1914. 

57.  Pitz,  W.,  Effect  of  elemental  sulphur  and  calcium  sulphate  on  certain  of 
the  higher  and  lower  forms  of  plant  life.  Jour.  Agric.  Res.  5:771-780. 
1916. 

58.  Reimer,  F.  C,  and  Tartar,  H.  V.,  Sulphur  as  a  fertilizer  for  alfalfa  in 
Southern  Oregon.    Ore.  Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  163.  1919. 


1922]  WOODARD—SOIL  FERTILITY  109 

59.  Robinson,  W.  O.,  Inorganic  composition  of  some  American  soils.  U.S. 
Dept.  Agric.  Bull.  122.  1914. 

60.  Robinson,  W.  O.,  Steinkonig,  L.  A.,  and  Fry,  W.  H.,  Variation  in 
chemical  composition  of  soils.     U.S.  Dept.  Agric.  Bull.  551.  191 7. 

61.  Schreiner,  O.,  The  role  of  oxidation  in  soil  fertility.  U.S.  Dept.  Agric. 
Soils  Bureau  Bull.  56.  pp.  30-42.  1909. 

62.  Shedd,  0.  M.,  The  sulphur  content  of  some  typical  Kentucky  soils.  Ky. 
Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  174.  1913. 

63.  ,  Effect  of  sulphur  on  different  crops  and  soils.    Jour.  Agric.  Res. 

11:91-103.  1917. 

64.  Sherbakoff,  C.  D.,  Potato  scab  and  sulphur  disinfection.  Cornell 
Univ.  Agric.  Exp,  Sta.  Bull.  350.  738,  739.  1914. 

65.  Smith,  R.  S.,  Some  effects  of  potassium  salts  on  soils.  Cornell  Univ. 
Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Mem.  35.  p.  586.  1920. 

66.  Stewart,  J.  P.,  The  fertilization  of  apple  orchards.  Pa.  State  Coll. 
Agric.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  153.  1918. 

67.  Stewart,  Robert,  Sulphur  in  relation  to  soil  fertility.  111.  Agric.  Exp. 
Sta.  Bull.  no.  227.  1920. 

68.  Swanson,  C.  O.,  and  Miller,  R.  W.,  The  sulphur  content  of  some  typical 
Kansas  soils  and  the  loss  of  sulphur  due  to  cultivation.  Soil  Science 
3:139-148.  1917. 

69.  Tressler,  D.  K.,  The  solubility  of  soil  potash  in  various  salt  solutions. 
Soil  Science  6:237-257.  1918. 

70.  Vendelmans,  Henry,  Manual  of  Manures.  1916  (p.  142). 

71.  Vivien,  A.,  Abs.  E.  S.  R.  17:951;   from  Monit.  Sci.  4:  ser.  19.  no.  2. 

773-779-  1905- 

72.  VooRHEES,  E.  B.,  Fertilizers.     191 7.    Revised  ed.,  p.  116. 

73.  Warington,  R.,  Reprint  from  Jour.  Chem.  Soc.  47.   1885. 


.12,'23 


Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT.  JJW  21,  t9M 


m:' 


3643 


*.' *^ tf ») ,f  i 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


